Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the meaningful detail that the restore can land as draft or live (publish=true implies overwriting published content) and that a version check is involved, but it never says what existing content is replaced or what happens on version mismatch.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity is partly the cause of the missing parameter and usage detail, and it is written in French while the rest of the tool surface is English.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

A destructive, fully-required four-parameter mutation with no output schema and no documented parameters needs more than one sentence. The critical optimistic-concurrency behavior around expectedVersion is left entirely unexplained, which risks agents calling it with a stale version.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% across four required parameters. The description only implicitly maps 'en brouillon ou en ligne' to publish; pageId, revisionId, and especially expectedVersion (the concurrency token) are given no meaning anywhere.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Restaurer une révision') and adds the outcome dimension (draft or live). It does not distinguish itself from the sibling restore_section_revision, nor from get_page_revision/list_revisions, so an agent must infer the difference from names alone.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no statement of when to use this instead of restore_section_revision, list_revisions, get_page_revision, or publish_page. The phrase 'avec contrôle de version' hints at a concurrency precondition but never states when or why to invoke it.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.